Com. v. Wood, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 261 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Lane

Opinion

J-S03033-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHELDON HENRY WOOD : : Appellant : No. 261 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-59-CR-0000241-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LANE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2026

Sheldon Wood (“Wood”) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his sixteen convictions for various counts of rape of a child,

rape by forcible compulsion, indecent assault of a child, indecent assault by

forcible compulsion, endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of minors,

indecent exposure, and unlawful contact with a minor.1 We affirm.

Given our disposition, a detailed factual and procedural history is

unnecessary. Briefly, on July 18, 2024, a jury convicted Wood of the above-

referenced offenses. Wood did not file a post-trial motion. The trial court

sentenced Wood on January 3, 2025. The trial court thereafter entered an

amended sentencing order on January 27, 2025. Wood did not file a post-

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(1), (c), 3126(a)(2), (7), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(ii), 3127(a), 6318(a)(1). J-S03033-26

sentence motion. Instead, Wood filed a timely notice of appeal on February

25, 2025. The trial court ordered Wood to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement. Wood complied, and in his concise statement he raised a singular

challenge to the weight of the evidence. The trial court thereafter authored a

statement in lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion in which it concluded that the sole

issue raised by Wood in his concise statement was waived because Wood failed

to raise his challenge to the weight of the evidence in an oral or written motion

before the trial court.

Wood raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the weight of

the evidence exists to convict [Wood].” Wood’s Brief at unnumbered 4

(unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Preliminarily, we must determine whether Wood preserved this claim for

our review. In order to preserve a challenge to the weight of the evidence for

appellate review, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607(A) requires a

defendant to raise such a challenge with the trial court in a motion for a new

trial that is presented: (1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing;

(2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence

motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). “The purpose of this rule is to make it

clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the

trial judge or it will be waived.” Id. Comment. An appellant’s failure to avail

himself of any of the three prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the

evidence issue to the trial court constitutes waiver of that claim. See

-2- J-S03033-26

Commonwealth v. Weir, 201 A.3d 163, 167 (Pa. Super. 2018). The failure

to properly preserve a weight claim will result in waiver, even if the defendant

includes the issue in a Rule 1925(b) concise statement. See Commonwealth

v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483, 494 (Pa. 2009).

Here, the certified record reflects that Wood did not make either an oral

or written motion for new trial raising a weight of the evidence claim before

the trial court, as required by Rule 607(a). Therefore, as he failed to preserve

the issue for our review, we conclude that his weight of the evidence challenge

is waived.2

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 02/24/2026

2 In his counseled appellate brief, Woods states that, “after sentencing[, trial

counsel] suddenly passed away before post[-]sentence motions could be filed” and that “[Wood’s present counsel, Timothy Reitz, Esquire,] was appointed after the time for [a]ppeal had expired.” Wood’s Brief at unnumbered 8. However, we note that Attorney Reitz filed a timely notice of appeal in this matter on Wood’s behalf on February 25, 2025. The certified docket also reflects that Attorney Reitz was counsel of record for Wood as of January 8, 2025, such that he was counsel for Wood when the amended sentencing order was entered on January 27, 2025.

-3-